Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I don't know, #7 seems to be more of a liberal tactic than a conservative tactic.

#8 Projection. Project all of your own failings onto your opposition.

Again, this would also seem to be an arguement that a liberal would use. I just don't see Rush or Anne projecting or playing the victim quite like Fisk or Franken does.

Perhaps some examples of the things on this list would be helpful? From actual conservative pundits, not just participants on A2K that is.

Perhaps you can give examples of when liberals have used tactics #7 and #8 and I will find examples of conservatives using the same.

I just don't see Rush or Anne projecting or playing the victim quite like Fisk or Franken does.

Perhaps some examples of the things on this list would be helpful? From actual conservative pundits, not just participants on A2K that is.

How to Argue Like a Liberal

.... being a liberal means never having to worry about the facts. Facts can be uncomfortable, and of course, anything that makes anyone uncomfortable is a violation of our constitutional rights. The only fact that matters is the foundational fact that you can only feel what is right, so if a fact happens to contradict your feelings, obviously that fact must be wrong. Sentio, ergo rectum.

Due to this inescapable and irrefutable logic, I have finally been convinced that I will be healthier, happier and wealthier if I join the large-brained ranks of the morally superior elite. I have therefore decided to become a liberal. Already I have benefited greatly from my decision - whereas many previous discussions ended in a frustrating impasse, now, being inestimably more clever and better-looking than before, I am able to win any argument with the greatest of ease. Let me share with you the secret of my success.

1. Make an untrue statement, preferably on the subject of something about which you know nothing.

2. Express astonishment that your source could possibly be inaccurate.

3. Demand what motivation your source would have to lie.

4. Assert that the other party's inability to articulate this motivation is tantamount to proof that your source is not lying.

5. Question the motivation of the contrary source.

6. Argue that all sources are equal and that therefore the contrary source is irrelevant.

7. Change the subject.

Alternatively ...

1. Make an untrue statement.

2. Deny that you said what you said.

3. Deny that the other party understood what you said.

4. Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.

5. Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.

6. Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.

7. Change the subject.

Remember: As long as you haven't admitted you're wrong, you are right. Any attempt to demonstrate otherwise is evidence of criminal hate and probably mental imbalance, too. Never forget that an answer to a question you have asked should always be regarded as a personal attack if the answer is something you don't like, and that the answer to all evils personal, spiritual, moral and societal is more government money.

Now, if you don't mind, I should probably go exercise my newfound moral superiority. The world won't save itself, after all - not without the fount of all that is good and wise and smart and cute, which is to say, me.

Well, I am not the one suggesting these arguments are indicative of conservative methods, now am I?

If I were, I would be more than happy to supply the examples.

Organized Sodomy is reaching out from America's children--rather like that scene in Night of the Living Dead in which the ghouls' hands come through the broken windows, clutching at their victims.

Not satisfied with using the public schools as pro-gay indoctrination centers, now they're targeting your pre-school children, America. Instead of broken windows, they're grabbing for your kids through the TV screen--with popular cartoon characters as bait.

Well well..........so the liberals have been doing a bit better than I thought. so then Tico, why don't you argue like a liberal and we'll argue like conservatives and everything will be decided based on who can be the most ridiculous. Whatever wins, I say. Forget morality. One person's morality is another person's too complicated. So I say, let's keep it simple as pie, we'll debate based on the numbers. Pretty soon we won't have to even argue anymore. We can just say, #7. And then the other side can say, #1. Think how much more efficient that would be. We'd get about as far as we do now. But we'd have so much more time for the good things in life, like good work, good sex and good food.

Liberal's statement:

"I think liberals need to argue more like conservatives. Here are the techniques. etc."

Conservative response:
"Liberals are the ones who do that, not conservatives. We stick to the facts. We're at least honest. We know a fact when we see one."

Liberal response:
"that's a number 1"

Conservative:
"Name me one instance in which a conservative made such an argument anyway. I want to see proof."

Liberal:
"I just said we needed to practice."

Conservative:
"How dare you say these are conservative arguments. You said they were conservative arguments, not me."

Liberal:
"Liberal, conservative, doesn't matter, liberals just need more practice, I say."

Conservative:
"You're just talking horsesh!t. Name a single fact, just facts, no feelings. Just because you feel something is a fact doesn't make it a fact!"

Liberal:
"But you're changing the subject. My statement was that liberals need more practice with these techniques. Whether they're liberal techniques or conservative. We need practice."


or alternatively:

Liberal:
"I think liberals need practice arguing like Conservatives. Here are the techniques."

Conservative:
"You do that not us."

Liberal:
"I think you're just lying. I'll hear no more of your lies."

Conservative:
"You're the liar! Not me."

Liberal:
"I haven't lied about anything. Show me proof I've lied."

Conservative:
"You're lying right now. That's my proof."

Liberal:
"Never mind about lying. Something should be done about that non-journalist, Gannon. His news outlet is supported by contributors, not advertising. And just look who the contributors are!"

Conservative:
"You're changing the subject."

Liberal:
"You conservatives just don't know how to think. Follow the money. See what you find."

Well well..........so the liberals have been doing a bit better than I thought. so then Tico, why don't you argue like a liberal and we'll argue like conservatives and everything will be decided based on who can be the most ridiculous. Whatever wins, I say. Forget morality. One person's morality is another person's too complicated. So I say, let's keep it simple as pie, we'll debate based on the numbers. Pretty soon we won't have to even argue anymore. We can just say, #7. And then the other side can say, #1. Think how much more efficient that would be. We'd get about as far as we do now. But we'd have so much more time for the good things in life, like good work, good sex and good food.

I#7 http://bushcountry.org/news/feb_news_pages/g_020405_duigon_queer_eye.htm

Quote:

Organized Sodomy is reaching out from America's children--rather like that scene in Night of the Living Dead in which the ghouls' hands come through the broken windows, clutching at their victims.

Not satisfied with using the public schools as pro-gay indoctrination centers, now they're targeting your pre-school children, America. Instead of broken windows, they're grabbing for your kids through the TV screen--with popular cartoon characters as bait.